Yes, the e-mail and the memo attached to it are some corroboration for the early theory that Trump was given lots of free media time to boost him, the idea being that if he got the Republican nomination, he would be easier to beat. Early in the primary campaign, Rand Paul said that if he would get as much free TV time as Trump did, he would be doing better in the race. That e-mail is from 23 April 2015, and it is here, along with the attached memo. You click on the 'attachments' button to get to the memo that was in Armstrong's article--

I assume that the "pied piper candidates" -- Ted Cruz, Trump, and Ben Carson -- could attract more "extreme" supporters, and influence the other candidates to move in their direction on issues as well. The memo urges the Democratic National Committee to tell the press to take the three pied piper candidates seriously.

Trump has named Reince Priebus, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, to be White House chief of staff, and Steve Bannon to be "chief strategist and senior counselor". They will work as equal partners. Priebus is a buddy of House Speaker Paul Ryan.

There are a few interesting tidbits that came up while talking to my acquaintances about polling. Several of them remembered that, in 2012, the polls were in fact wrong--they predicted too few votes for Obama. 2012 should have been closer--especially in the Midwest--than it turned out, if the polls were right. All the questionable stuff went by the wayside because the side that was predicted to win won, even though the numbers were off. This time, the prediction was off by about the same margin, but in the opposite direction. Of course, what mattered this time around was not just that the overall polls were off, but where the polls were off--the Midwest, where, according to news stories, many counties that went for Obama, full of white working class voters, swung heavily to Trump.
What this is saying is twofold: the polls were as crappy back in 2012 as they are in 2016--just that we were systematically blind to them for superficial reasons; and the polls missed the same voters, who, unknown to the self-important folks, were decisive in shaping the election back then as they were again.

I think this is a game changer, if not the game changer. All the memes about the white working class becoming obsolete electorally are out the window, at least for a few more decades. Unless something gets messed up along the way, they might even become cultural "white working class," a new political force whose ranks may not be uniformly "white" but will include minority folks who don't care for enforced multiculturalism and prefer American tribalism. There are interesting signs this election: the minority voters did not care for enforced multiculturalism and many stayed home. If Trump keeps his promise to the American working class regardless of race, he will have credibility with blacks, Puerto-Ricans and others who don't care for free immigration. It will take time, but this is a potentially huge positive development--if Trump doesn't screw up.

For me, any force that attempts to gain at the expense of others is evil; to me this is the very definition of the word. Otherwise we might as well go back to the Law of the Jungle. It is intrinsic in the Social Contract that coming together in society is a net-gain for the individual. Otherwise, why bother?

But there is so much evil in our world, where to start? As an adult, I have long ago given up on black-and-white explanations. We each have to choose for ourselves which is the greatest evil, the evil that begat all others. The explanation that best fits reality as I see it is Marx's exposition of the ruling class in the Communist Manifesto. Put your McCarthy blinders aside for a moment and read it. It has served me for decades and continues to be instructive of what is happening in the shadows of the corridors of power.

My personal mantra is "Power is the Problem". I have worked for years under the proviso that power corrupts and cannot be used for good. I have had to expand this a little over time; Power also attracts the Corruptible. The "enemy" if I were to drill it down to the individual level are the sociopaths and psychopaths who are preying on humanity. These pretend humans can play the dirty political game harder than us Children of Light, so they often rise to the top. They are motivated to use this power for their own personal gain, and to hide their crimes (indeed their very existence as a foreign body inside our Human community). The solution is for each of us to stop transferring our political power to a 'representative' or a leader, and start ruling our own lives.

I hate Trump somewhat so far, so If I could get paid I'd waste my time protesting! I want $15 an hour to just stand somewhere. I blame those protestors or some of them for the loss. Not that it would accomplish something to protest, but I could go buy Lobster afterwards. Whom do I call! These protests are idiotic, once he is in office and makes a move the millions will come out, for now its kind of silly he won didn't he? The nomination of Giuliani will cause gigantic massive demonstrations Hold until then. Maybe I can make t-shirts and sell them at the protests. We know he loves tactical nukes so I'd think this site might be wary of that, but mainly people on this site are just thrilled he won, and that is scary.

Can't report on that. My time in London was decades ago and at that time a fair few of the inhabitants seemed to spend their leisure hours stretched out on the floor smoking pot and saying "Peace, man." Politics was discussed but the general view was that all you needed was Love. An admirable sentiment but short, I felt, on detail.

Coming from a time and place where 80 acres was a spread and you didn't hang about if you were set to mucking out the parlour I came late to the progressive dream; but there's been plenty of opportunity to study it since. Plenty. I can confirm that for the fully enlightened, Londoner or not, the notion of "having a country" is deeply suspect. Since the States set the ideological tone for us I assume that's the case there too. I noticed that in the recent election "You either have a country or you don't" wasn't, as far as I could tell, a message that appealed to the average American progressive.

What he said (to Stahl) was that he would appoint pro-life judges and that he thought the jurisdiction on abortion would then return to the states. That is not the same as your statement. Also, I doubt that "millions" will riot against Giuliani's appointment. How many millions are in the streets now? I voted for Johnson but would have preferred Weld. IMO Trump has no loyalty to the Republican Party and his agenda clashes with the Republican aparatchiks. What, exactly do you object to about him? pl

Aye, there's the core question, because keeping the promise may not be just a matter of restoring a 1950s status quo ante. In addition to jobs being lost to off-shoring, the jobs themselves are becoming fewer as automation greatly increases productivity. And the trends that have been against the AWC have been in favor of the interests of significant numbers of GOP Congressional donors.

Maybe Trump has a way in mind of coping with the situation -- it will be interesting to see what he does.

I deleted your Skowhegan comment because of the arrogant, sneering, condescending tone. Do you really think the people on this board don't talk to or know anyone but military people? People with attitudes like you have created the Multi Culti mentality of the Democratic Party that was just roundly defeated and that has been steadily losing power at the state level for a long time. pl

It used to be Republicans represented business and Democrats labor until the latter got run over by Reagan and in response their leadership transmuted into "Rockefeller" Republicans, liberal on social issues but pro business. They sold out the economic interests of the working class and tried to win most of them back by an identity politics that supported women's issues and civil rights for ethnic minorities and gays embracing a multiculturalism that celebrated the diversity of all but Redneck-Americans the one group for whom it was not politically incorrect to stereotype and demean. Tone deaf to the wail of the White underclass in the Great Recession the limousine liberals gave us the one candidate who could actually lose to a novice like Trump thinking that gay rights and gun control were more important to the public than where the money for the next rent check was going to come from. The master marketer Trump with his pitch perfect ear to the ground successfully sold himself to that one half of the electorate which is the White working class, women as well as men. If the Democrats think they lost this election to misogyny and racism, don't overthrow their leadership and return to their New Deal roots they will remain a minority party for a long time to come.

An article on the white working class - WWC, an acronym that may catch on - published by Harvard Business Review seems very convincing to me about how they could support Trump. How they will feel and what they will do if Trump can't deliver on major parts of his promises is the big question of the next few years. Maybe Trump and his team will be able to Make America Great Again, and my skepticism will prove to be unfounded. Time will tell.

kao_hsien_chih
Since it seems to me that you have in-depth knowledge of history and politics in East Asia, I'd like to ask you for an opinion.
I have recently read an article (not in English) about the ''Tiananmen Square Massacre''. The author writes that according to Wikileaks, which published in 2011 some kind of old confidential reports from the US Embassy in China, the soldiers didn't shoot at the protesters and that there was no massacre of students on Tiananmen Square. The author later mentions Nicholas Kristof, Jay Mathews, James Miles...
Can I have your opinion?